Persian version of my blog post about English as the non-language of globalization.
Translated by Niloufar Behrooz (نیلوفر بهروز)

(نوشتار شماره ٢ در مجموعه نوشتار های کوتاه درباره ی نشانه های چند زبانه)

اغلب تابلوهایی كه در مكان هایِ عمومیِ حالِ حاضر يافت می شوند جنبه ی تجاری دارند. اين نوعی روشِ تبليغات است و انتخابِ لغات در تابلوهایِ تجاری از جمله اسامیِ مغازه ها و فروشگاه ها به خوبی بيانگر ارزشهایِ مرتبط با يك زبان خاص مي باشد. هدف اصلی اين است كه معنایِ ضمنیِ نامِ فروشگاه به گونه ای باشد كه مشتری های زيادی را جذب كند. از يك چشم اندازِ چند زبانه، نشانه هایِ جالب آن هایی هستند که در آن ها از زبانی غير از زبانِ پیش فرض – زبانِ رسمي يك مكانِ خاص – استفاده شده باشد. در بيشتر دنيایِ غيرِ انگليسی زبان علامت هایِ انگليسی البته باعث مباهاتِ آن مكان شده وانگليسی به طور گسترده ای با مفاهيمی چون نوين گری، پيشرفت، جهانی سازی و مصرف گرايی پيوند خورده است. در حالی كه زبانهای غير انگليسی غالبا نشانگر كليشه های قومی هستند، انگليسی نشانگر يك كليشه یِ اجتماعی است (همان طور كه با شرح جزئيات در اين مقاله به آن پرداخته ام). اين به اين معناست كه انگليسی قرار نيست همان طور كه  فرانسوی یا ايتاليايی برای آغشتنِ یک داد وستدِ اقتصادی به رنگ و بویِ فرانسوی و ايتاليايی مورد استفاده قرار می گیرد، يكسری كيفيتِ بريتانيايی و آمريكايیِ کلیشه ای را تبليغ كند.

ارتباط زبان انگليسی با مصرف گرايی به طور كامل در تابلویِ اين فروشگاه در فرودگاهِ مونيخ مشخص شده است. مونيخ پايتختِ باواريا يكي از ايالات ساختار فدرال آلمان است. لغتِ آلمانیِ موردِ استفاده برای باواريا بايرن (Bayern) است و بخش اول Bay-ern دقيقا مثل كلمه یِ انگليسیِ Buy (خريدن) تلفظ مي شود. اسم ِ فروشگاه نوعی معمایِ لفظی ِ به تمامِ معناست. رنگ ملی باواريا، يعني آبي، در پس زمينه یِ لوزی شکلِ تابلو روابط ملی (گرایانه) را تقویت می کند. به عنوان كسی كه در باواريا بزرگ شده، با پيش فرضی از نماد ملی كه در بچگی به من القا شده بود، عكس العملِ ناخودآگاهِ من اما نسبت به اين تابلو از نوع وحشت و رنجش بود.

زبان انگليسی در اين تابلو به وضوح هيچ گونه ارتباطی با هيچ كشور انگليسی زبانی ندارد، بلكه انگليسی را به نمادِ ملیِ ناحیه ای غيرِ انگليسی زبان، يعنی باواريا، پيوند مي دهد و مردمِ آن ناحیه را به عنوان يك هدف مصرفی عرضه مي كند. کالاهایِ موجود در اين فروشگاه از انواعِ سوغات به شمار مي آيند، سوغاتِ باواريايي، آلمانی، اروپايی، فرودگاهی، كريسمسی ( من اين عكس را نوامبر سال پيش گرفتم) و چيزهای ديگری كه تنها برایِ خريده شدن آن جا هستند. بخريد!

مثل بسياری از فرودگاه های ديگر، انگليسی اين مكان را به نا-فضایی برای مصرف ِ مفرط، گردشِ مفرط و نماد هایِ ملیِ مفرط تبديل می سازد. انگليسی زبانِ جهانی سازی است؛ در این شکی نیست اما جهاني سازیِ هيچ-چيز، همان طور که جورج ریتزر به ما می گوید! آيا اين به اين معناست كه انگليسی زبانِ هيچ-چيز است؟ نا-افرادی در نا-مکانی سرگرم ِ خریدنِ نا-چیزهایی در نا-برخوردهایِ تجاری و با استفاده از یک نا-زبان؟

References

Piller, I. (2003). ADVERTISING AS A SITE OF LANGUAGE CONTACT Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23 DOI: 10.1017/S0267190503000254

Ritzer, G. (2007). The globalization of nothing 2 Thousand Oaks, CA, & London: Sage.

Author Ingrid Piller

Dr Ingrid Piller is Professor of Applied Linguistics at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Ingrid’s research expertise is in the fields of intercultural communication, bilingual education and the sociolinguistics of language learning and multilingualism in the contexts of migration and globalization.

More posts by Ingrid Piller
  • anonymous

    lg for noting?it reminds me of Becckets book,texs for nothing, 😉
    any way, dont u think thats becoz of this material world that every thing ,including lg, is based on some kind of give and take relationship?? 🙂

  • Dariush Izadi

    Dear Niloufar
    Thanks for the correct and good translation. Frankly, I’ve read the English version of it and had difficulty translating some parts of it into Persian (e.g.جهاني سازیِ هيچ-چيز,معمایِ لفظی ). That helped me to get hold of some new Persian expressions, too!

    • Niloufar

      You’re most welcome! I’m glad you liked it.

  • pas

    It seems the translator has coined some new words in Persian like “نوین‌گری” which seems to translate “modernism”. The more agreed-upon equivalent would be something like “نوگرایی”.

    • یگانه

      Exactly! نوگرایی is a well-established, frequently used equivalent, while نوین گری seems unusual.

    • vahid parvaresh

      Dear Pas,

      Novin Gari has been used instead of modernity.
      Is is possible to let me and other reader of this blog know where your information surrounding the more agreed-upon comes from?
      vaazhenaameye oloome ensaani does not necessarily support your claim.

      • vahid parvaresh

        For your information, recently Farhangestan has suggested several other equivalents for modernity or modernism totally discarding the so-called well-established ones. Notaraazi is one of them! Im sure you are not going to send them a letter reiterating the claim that they are not well-established! Translated foreign words are in the state of flux. suggestions:
        a. zabaane elmi va zabaane adabi By Dariush Ashuri.
        b. Zabaane baaz by Dariush Ashuri.
        c. baaz andishi zabaane farsi by Dariush Ashuri.
        Last but not least, such unsubstantiated claims will blurr your vision. If you study language and linguistics, you have to read up more on the nature of translation or translation theory and the debate surrounding the role of the translator. d. Shargh Newspaper this Tuesday had an insightful article on the nature of such debates. I hope you can find it and read it.
        e. One of the purposes of language-on-the-move is to challenge the so-called well–established categories/ideas.

        • Zohreh

          Vahid’s comment is so conclusive that hardly leaves any room for more support.
          I also believe that in some cases, the existence of an “agreed-upon” equivalent is nothing but a myth. Recently, I was writing sth about “stream of consciousness” in Per, but I was baffled by the 3 equivalents offered for it: جریان سیال ذهن سیلان ذهن سیلان اگاهی. Although the first one is “frequently” used, it has been called into question by some scholars of the field, because it is not expressive enough! Now which one is the best? I think there is no clear-cut answer to such questions; it depends on one’s PURPOSE! Sometimes, the most frequent one would suffice, but if there is a special focus on some meaning components, the less frequent, more scholarly one might be used. So, we are not in a position to reject others’ choice, esp. when there is a cogent reason behind it.

          Keeping the PURPOSE of this blog in mind, I would have revised my intentions and used my keen eyes for reading between the lines!

  • Ali Sharif

    سرکا خانم نیلوفر بهروز

    با تشکر از زحمتی که برای ترجمه کشیدید، توجه شما را به سه نکته در پاراگراف آخر جلب میکنم که به نظر من امکان توجه و تغییر دارد.

    الف. ترجمه کلمه Globalization به “جهانی سازی” عموماً صحیح نیست زیرا که بار منفی القا میکند. جهانی سازی بعنوان یک پروژه (Project) در نظرگرفته میشود که برای غربی سازی (Westernization) جهان از طرف کشورهای قدرتمند در حال اجراست. حال آنکه چنین مفهوم انتقادی بسیار کم مورد پذیرش اندیشمندان این رشته مطالعاتی قرار گرفته است. پیشنهاد میکنم از معادل فارسی “جهانی شدن” استفاده کنید.

    ب. کلمه Gratuitous معنی “مفرط” نمی دهد. آنچه از معنی کلمه در تناسب با مفهوم مقاله و ترکیب بسیار خاص non-space استنباط میشود کلمه “پوچ” و “بیهوده” است.

    ج. کلمه Imagery مطلقاً معنی “نماد” نمیدهد. نماد بطور شاخص برای واژه Symbol استفاده میشود و بار معنایی کاملاً متفاوت دارد. Imagery عموماً به نوعی تصویر ذهنی یا تصور اتلاق میشود و در اینجا با توجه به استفاده از کلمه Gratuitous به معنی ” پوچ و بیهوده” در ترکیب “national imagery” نوعی تصور ذهنی بیهوده نسبت به National

  • vahid parvaresh

    Dear Ali,

    No! You are simply wrong.
    a. There are a series of books published by several publishers in Iran under the name jahaanisaazi and you have gone to great length to say that the term is negative! Yes, it is negative! And this is exactly for this negative sense that the translator has used the word. Read the books published in Farsi especially by RokhdadNo publications!
    c. Symbol does not mean namaad??!! Refer to the well-trusted vaazhenaameye oloome ensaani by Dariush Ashouri and check p. 409! For your information, it exactly means namaad.
    d. Gratuitous in the context under scrutiny means mofrat or efraati! Remember mofrat is rather ambiguous in Farsi. Here it means ubiquitous unnecessarily.
    d. I suggest you also read up on Ritzers book whose information you can find in the text to familiarize yourself more with the literature surrounding globalization.

    • Ali Sharif

      Dear Vahid,

      1. Published books under the name “Jahansazi” do not necessarily indicate the accuracy of this word. Moreover, such an argumentation is not that appropriate. As I mentioned before, the Negative concept of “Jahansazi” is merely due to the negative view towards Westernization of world and existence of Domination and Hegemony, not because of what has been said in the article that you emphasized. The negative sense that translator means is something else not related to the word “Jahansazi” and its implicit meaning.

      2. I precisely mentioned that “Nemad” is used for Symbol, not for “Imagary”. Your misunderstanding is due to unjustified Persian/English text here.

    • Ali Sharif

      3. Ambiguity of word Gratuitous is possible in Persian, not in English and I agree with you about translation and meaning but not about the originality of that world.

      4. Because of my field of education, I have studied many books and articles about this, in addition to Ritzer more than 25 references in English and Persian. But if necessary, I will try more. Anyway, thank you for your kindly suggestions.

  • Anna

    As far as my knowledge as a native Persian speaker helps me in this regard, most of the words have been conpicuously chosen in the Persian translation! I got the shock of my life when I read some of the comments written by our friends especially yours Ali!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How can you claim that something is MOTLAGHAN wrong????! Its a big claim! Are you sure about what youre basing your claim on?? Im Not!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Tahmineh

    I thought the period of finding faults with translators’ choice of words and writing was way over! Such comments do not interest language on the move fans! As we all know where it all comes from! Please give the translators a break!
    As I remember clearly both Ingrid and Vahid made it pretty clear before that the site is not about translation. It is really sad to see so much time is spent on commenting on the translations while we could have great discussions on the topic like previous English and Persian posts! This is language on the move and its aim is much higher! Why should some people still be worried about the more-agreed-upon terms while the translation is totally understandable!

    It is really the time that some people start reading the text for the text not the minute differences of word choices that could have made the translation more this and that!!

  • Zohreh

    Dear Niloufar,

    Tnx for the translation!

    I think in any task of translation and evaluation, the purpose of the source text and the function it is going to serve in the target community are among determining factors which should be taken into consideration. In cases where the content or meaning is to be communicated, as long as a translated piece is precise, easy to read, and understandable, it has successfully fulfilled its purpose. So, a big thanks to u!

    • Niloufar

      Youre welcome!
      Yes! Thats what the site is all about!
      Thanks for your appreciation of the text…

  • Nader D

    try to have enough capacity.it’s vital to share ideas nowadays.
    niloufar,
    thank you for your nice translation.

    • Niloufar

      My pleasure! ..and thank YOU for reading!